USA V. COURTNEY VAUGHN, No. 20-30016 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 8 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 20-30016 D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00021-RMP-19 MEMORANDUM* COURTNEY D. VAUGHN, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Rosanna Malouf Peterson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 2, 2020** Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Courtney D. Vaughn appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 24-month sentence imposed following his third revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Vaughn contends that the above-Guidelines sentence is substantively * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). unreasonable because the district court placed too much emphasis on his poor history on supervised release instead of focusing on his mitigating arguments regarding his efforts to become a better father and his mental health issues. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The 24-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Vaughn’s repeated breaches of the district court’s trust and his refusal to avail himself of opportunities presented by the court. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir. 2007) (primary purpose of revocation sentence is to sanction defendant’s breach of the court’s trust). AFFIRMED. 2 20-30016

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.